makes no difference in to why car a braked, as you as the following car should be traveling at a distance that you can stop. see the linked rules above

i dont believe it even comes into consideration when the insurance company looks into the accident, because more than likely no one got car A's details as they were not involved in the accident

Surely it does, otherwise someone could just slam on their brakes for no reason in the hope of causing an accident. I am sure the police would prosecute someone for doing that, as it would be dangerous driving, and then the insurance company would put the blame on that person. Although I suspect this situation is rare.

makes no difference in to why car a braked, as you as the following car should be traveling at a distance that you can stop. see the linked rules above

i dont believe it even comes into consideration when the insurance company looks into the accident, because more than likely no one got car A's details as they were not involved in the accident

Surely it does, otherwise someone could just slam on their brakes for no reason in the hope of causing an accident. I am sure the police would prosecute someone for doing that, as it would be dangerous driving, and then the insurance company would put the blame on that person. Although I suspect this situation is rare.

The rules are written to account for any instance where you need to apply brakes and needing a reasonable stopping distance.

So even if someone was maliciously applying brakes, if the person behind that vehicle had left enough space, in theory it shouldn't cause an incident, malicious or not. (again.. in theory).

thats generally called dangerous driving but how do you prove that? you cant really, and would that person have stopped? or realised there was an accident behind them? unlikely

and again if you are following you still have to be able to stop without hitting the car in-front, regardless of how they decide to stop.

its still got zero to do with this situation and the car 2 back (car c) not stopping when the car behind (car b) did

I think it would if the police charged car A for dangerous driving, irregardless if car B managed to stop. Car B may have managed to stop for multiple reasons, eg. stopping by swerving at an angle, while car C may not have had the room to allow this. I think the OP needs to explain the circumstances more of why car A had to slam on their brakes. Whatever the case, insurance companies will likely try to look for fault elsewhere, so they can get back their expenses. At the end of the day, someone is usually to blame for it. Potentially someone walking across the motorway, causing a car to slam on their brakes, and a chain reaction further back, is breaking the law.There was apparently a story on fair go of an insurance company taking a claim against a pedestrian who caused a car accident, after a police report was filed.

the OP probably has next to no clue why car A had to slam on their brakes, they are behind them, they cant see in front. they dont know whats going on.

you cant really look else where when the road rule is pretty clear as to the stopping short senario. its your responsibility no matter what else it going on.

i have hit someone from behind before, they were drunk, had no licence so shouldn't have been on the road in the first place, police attended but couldn't do anything about the guy i hit, and i got done for failing to stop short. And insurance couldnt do anything either.

i would like to see your "story" as its possibly a different situation to this. so apples and oranges.

I think it would if the police charged car A for dangerous driving, irregardless if car B managed to stop. Car B may have managed to stop for multiple reasons, eg. stopping by swerving at an angle, while car C may not have had the room to allow this. I think the OP needs to explain the circumstances more of why car A had to slam on their brakes. Whatever the case, insurance companies will likely try to look for fault elsewhere, so they can get back their expenses. At the end of the day, someone is usually to blame for it. Potentially someone walking across the motorway, causing a car to slam on their brakes, and a chain reaction further back, is breaking the law.There was apparently a story on fair go of an insurance company taking a claim against a pedestrian who caused a car accident, after a police report was filed.

Only if one of the people isnt insured do they bother with that, if you all have insurance they will let one of them take the blame even if the others could have something to answer for, because in the end they would just be paying to shift the blame among themselves.

4 cars were traveling on the motorway head south. (Refer to them as Car A, B, C and D)

During rush hour for whatever reason, car A braked abruptly. Car B then had to apply brakes heavily, but had enough room to stop and did not hit car A.

Car C did not apply brakes in time/did not have enough room to stop and rear ended Car B. Car D then hit Car C (to the best of my knowledge).

I'm trying to understand how the "assignment of blame" would work in this case. I was always lead to believe that the person at the tail end of it was classed as "at fault" for the entire incident because the did not stop in time, however, I assume there are some situations where this may or may not be the case?

Does anyone have any first hand knowledge of a situation like this? or know how a situation like this would be resolved in terms of accountability?

I was hit in the rear by a car that pushed me into the car in front, the rear car that hit me was at fault and completely responsible for the accident. In your example car C could claim to have been pushed into car B by car D. My understanding is that car D gets the whole blame, but in truth the insurance company may see it different.

Interestingly in Australia on their traffic programmes they have charged people at the front if they brake for no reason and cause an accident that way.

I read it as Car B stopped short of Car A - no damage, therefore no fault there.

Car C failed to stop short - their fault - they have liability to the driver of Car B for any damage.

Car D then also failed to stop short - they have liability to Car C for rear-end damage and damage to their own car.

If Car B rolled into Car A after Car C hit it, Car C is liable to Car A also.

If Car D crashing into C caused C and B to roll forward into A, Car D is liable for that.

It would be different if Car D smashed into Car C BEFORE Car C hit Car B. Depends how many impacts Car B felt I suppose.

It's unlikely they can identify that Car C hit Car B before Car D hit Car C, so the assumption is the rearmost car pushed all the cars together.

Driver A can say they thought they saw a child running out onto the road, and braked abruptly for that reason. Even if there was no child the driver did the right thing and can not be considered liable.

I read it as Car B stopped short of Car A - no damage, therefore no fault there.

Car C failed to stop short - their fault - they have liability to the driver of Car B for any damage.

Car D then also failed to stop short - they have liability to Car C for rear-end damage and damage to their own car.

If Car B rolled into Car A after Car C hit it, Car C is liable to Car A also.

If Car D crashing into C caused C and B to roll forward into A, Car D is liable for that.

It would be different if Car D smashed into Car C BEFORE Car C hit Car B. Depends how many impacts Car B felt I suppose.

It's unlikely they can identify that Car C hit Car B before Car D hit Car C, so the assumption is the rearmost car pushed all the cars together.

Driver A can say they thought they saw a child running out onto the road, and braked abruptly for that reason. Even if there was no child the driver did the right thing and can not be considered liable.

Car C would know if they hit B before D hit them. It could have happened very quickly, in which case, I'd agree D is most likely at fault, but blame could be shared between C and D for the damage to B.

It would be in C's interests to claim they were hit by D before hitting B as that would absolve them of the liability of hitting C in any case, however such as assertion would risky as different accounts (including witness accounts) may contradict such a claim, and could ultimately end badly for C if their insurer decides they were deceptive.

Insurers will likley want to extract as many excesses as possible to reduce their liability, so even partial fault will result in an excess/rating. I would expect both C and D will be paying in this case.

I can't see any situation in which car A would ever be found to be at fault in this accident. Even if they deliberately slammed on the brakes, you still can't follow that close.

As others have stated, they could claim they saw something on the road (maybe an animal) and brakes accordingly. You could never prove they never 'thought' they saw that, and even if they did and were wrong, those behind still can't follow that close. If by slim chance there was some way to prove car A braked maliciously, they may get a fine for dangerous driving or something like that, but still zero fault for the accident.

Even in D's case where C effectively stopped in a near instant, you still can't follow that close. You never know the braking power of the car in front of you, and some cars can stop in insanely short distances. I was following an HSV last year in a Corolla on the Napier-Taupo road. We were both doing 100ks and the HSV decided to brake very heavily to make a last minute turn off. I was following at the right distance and paying attention so was able to stop in time, but it was a pretty scary experience as he went from 100 to 0 in a far, far shorter distance than I was able to in the Corolla - but you just have to factor those kinds of things into your following distance and pay attention.

I was following an HSV last year in a Corolla on the Napier-Taupo road. We were both doing 100ks and the HSV decided to brake very heavily to make a last minute turn off. I was following at the right distance and paying attention so was able to stop in time, but it was a pretty scary experience as he went from 100 to 0 in a far, far shorter distance than I was able to in the Corolla - but you just have to factor those kinds of things into your following distance and pay attention.

I am pretty sure that if a police car was in that situation and had to slam on the brakes behind hsv, they would have likely have charged that driver for dangerous driving. If you really want to be safe you would travel far further behind than just two seconds, as that in reality is not enough time to stop if someone decides to slam on their brakes.

Apparently it is also legal to listen to your music player with headphones in the car. However if the police decide your driving is being affected, or it was likely to be the reason you are driving dangerously, they can issue you with a ticket. At least that is what I was told by the police. Once you get a ticket, you have broken a law, and then open to insurance companies claiming against you.